"Setting cabin temperature to 72°F would have saved 2.4 miles" when climate consumed 0.3 miles

[3sr+buyer]

The energy screen often says that "Setting the cabin temperature to 72°F would have saved 2.4 miles" or some such while it shows that the climate consumed a much lesser amount like 0.3 miles (weather was such that I was using only the fan, with no heat or AC). This seems to be a bug.

 

[GtiMart]

There was another thread about this a while back, soon after the appearance of this dashboard. Unfortunately I don't remember the outcome. It does look like a bug, and I've had it sometimes too.

 

[DownshiftDre]

Does they mean it could have been -2.1 miles for Climate?

Look at the elevation item. Cost 9.7 going up but saved 9.9 going down and that’s why it shows -0.2.

I wish there was an official explanation of this when it came out a while back.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

The energy screen often says that "Setting the cabin temperature to 72°F would have saved 2.4 miles" or some such while it shows that the climate consumed a much lesser amount like 0.3 miles (weather was such that I was using only the fan, with no heat or AC). This seems to be a bug.

View attachment 1060530

According to the graphic
- you used 0.3 miles for climate.
- you used -5.3 miles relative to rated
- So rated climate use would have been 0.3 - (-5.3) = 5.6 miles

"Setting the cabin temperature to 72°F would have saved 2.4 miles".
Rated may have AC set to 68°F/20°C, or perhaps assumes a constant amount per unit time.
So the bug may be Climate use compared to rated instead of according to your use.

 

[3sr+buyer]

Does they mean it could have been -2.1 miles for Climate?

Look at the elevation item. Cost 9.7 going up but saved 9.9 going down and that’s why it shows -0.2.

I have not seen anything other than elevation show a negative number for consumption. Actually, in the above image, the negative consumption for elevation seems odd since, the start and end were at the exact same location and elevation, so it should show 0 miles if downhill perfectly compensated for uphill (but often downhill does not save as much as uphill consumes, resulting in some consumption when starting and ending at the same location and elevation).